Calibandar

Tennis Volume 6

264 posts in this topic

Not sure about that. Wouldn't be surprised if she was suspended for at least two years. That's what I think should happen anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'd say that two years would definitely be an overkill in this situation.

If she really used the same medicine for years now and has the proper medical documentation to back up such a claim, there is no reason not to reduce her suspension. Of course, if she continues using it then she should be punished more severely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally don't believe anyone who was caught red-handed, but there is something that irks me about this. I am nit forgiving when it comes to doping and I do think it is the worst type of behavior, but in this case, I believe Sharapowa and the way she came clean about what happened to her installs some confidence. 

On the other hand, as baxus said, the doping is a moving thing. What is acceptable today, probably won't be tomorrow and I know that keeping records of what is banned isn't as easy as one would think. Lastly as my grandma said about Djokovic "he isn't winning them by eating seeds". Medications are part of the sport and the line with ever-changing rules can be blurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2016 at 9:07 AM, Gears of the Beast said:

Initial thoughts; I find it hard to believe that an athlete like her would somehow be unaware of WADA banning a substance she was using.  

Looks like my doubt was justified. Hopefully she gets a lengthy ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gears of the Beast said:

Looks like my doubt was justified. Hopefully she gets a lengthy ban. 

That's a whole other story.

Missing it on the list is one thing and, though incredibly naive, could be used to reduce sentence.

Willfully ignoring WADA is another thing. She should definitely be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gears of the Beast said:

Looks like my doubt was justified. Hopefully she gets a lengthy ban. 

 

1 hour ago, baxus said:

That's a whole other story.

Missing it on the list is one thing and, though incredibly naive, could be used to reduce sentence.

Willfully ignoring WADA is another thing. She should definitely be banned.

Well, I don't know. It would seem reasonable, even before her admission of guilt to assume that WADA informed the players about the drug. I mean the title itself is a bit reaching. No one contacted Sharapowa specifically and told her, it was just the usual announcement. So, while the usual announcements are more than likely to happen, it is still the question whether someone on her team acknowledged the change. 

IDK, I am not huge fan of Sharapowa, and in general, not highly invested in women's tennis, but there is something genuine about her admission. Athletes are rarely that good of actors and when I just remember Tyger Woods, I know there is a huge difference in the level of sincerity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indian Wells begins today. Looking forward to it, though very sad about the fact that Federer cancelled this tournament as well.

He's not playing in Miami either even though he could. Apparently he hasn't been in Miami for a few years and wont be there next year either. That leaves very little competition for the Djoker at Indian Wells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Risto said:

 

Well, I don't know. It would seem reasonable, even before her admission of guilt to assume that WADA informed the players about the drug. I mean the title itself is a bit reaching. No one contacted Sharapowa specifically and told her, it was just the usual announcement. So, while the usual announcements are more than likely to happen, it is still the question whether someone on her team acknowledged the change. 

IDK, I am not huge fan of Sharapowa, and in general, not highly invested in women's tennis, but there is something genuine about her admission. Athletes are rarely that good of actors and when I just remember Tyger Woods, I know there is a huge difference in the level of sincerity.

Well, ignorance doesn't relieve one of responsibility, you know?

She is a professional athlete and one part of her job is to keep track of banned substances list or have someone do it for her and act accordingly.

I'm sympathetic to her health issues, and if she can provide proper medical records she should get a reduced sentence, but still get a sentence nonetheless.

Her failure to keep track of changes on banned substance list is equal to Troicki's failure to provide a sample for testing and should be treated similarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, baxus said:

Well, ignorance doesn't relieve one of responsibility, you know?

She is a professional athlete and one part of her job is to keep track of banned substances list or have someone do it for her and act accordingly.

I'm sympathetic to her health issues, and if she can provide proper medical records she should get a reduced sentence, but still get a sentence nonetheless.

Her failure to keep track of changes on banned substance list is equal to Troicki's failure to provide a sample for testing and should be treated similarly.

No, I agree that it doesn't relieve her of responsibility, I just want to point out that the article itself was reaching in its conclusion. Sharapowa wasn't specifically and personally informed. It isn't like someone (yet) has any proof of personally telling someone from her team. 

The thing about Troicki was that you could see he was making some s*it up. You could sense the lie in his tone. For some reason, I was never fully convinced by his story which is something I can say for Shawapowa. 

At the end I do believe that this is just a symptom of the larger problems. You spoke about the medications players are taking. And the fluidity of the regulations is what is even worse here. This drug is now banned, but wasn't years prior to it. So, she was using doping according to new rules for the past 10 years? The problem is that perhaps in 5 years, the regulations will be made that no athlete today would pass it. That is why I insist on the intent and whether Sharapowa was truly just mistaken (and prior to that whether she really needed it) or whether she was consciously using it to get the advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, baxus said:

Well, ignorance doesn't relieve one of responsibility, you know?

She is a professional athlete and one part of her job is to keep track of banned substances list or have someone do it for her and act accordingly.

One of the articles I was reading stated that Sharapova's annual earnings are greater than the entire budget of WADA, so you would think she could afford to employ someone to keep track of minor details like whether the performance-enhancing drugs she's taking are on the banned list or not. She may have had legitimate reasons for taking it but it's also straining credulity to think that a top-level athlete who will have every tiny detail of her diet or training scrutinised for what impact it might have on their fitness would be unaware that meldonium could have beneficial side-effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Risto said:

No, I agree that it doesn't relieve her of responsibility, I just want to point out that the article itself was reaching in its conclusion. Sharapowa wasn't specifically and personally informed. It isn't like someone (yet) has any proof of personally telling someone from her team. 

The thing about Troicki was that you could see he was making some s*it up. You could sense the lie in his tone. For some reason, I was never fully convinced by his story which is something I can say for Shawapowa. 

At the end I do believe that this is just a symptom of the larger problems. You spoke about the medications players are taking. And the fluidity of the regulations is what is even worse here. This drug is now banned, but wasn't years prior to it. So, she was using doping according to new rules for the past 10 years? The problem is that perhaps in 5 years, the regulations will be made that no athlete today would pass it. That is why I insist on the intent and whether Sharapowa was truly just mistaken (and prior to that whether she really needed it) or whether she was consciously using it to get the advantage.

I'm not so sure Sharapova didn't know meldonium got on a banned substances list. Even if she didn't know, she should've known since it's part of her job and one of the conditions for making millions of dollars/euros/pounds.

Troicki's story deed seem full of it, but then again, Sharapova's doesn't sound much better either. "Oh, I didn't know I had to give both urine and blood sample for testing" is not more hard to believe than "Oh, I didn't know I shouldn't use it anymore".

Ever expanding and evolving banned substance list is not a problem, it's the only way to go to keep up with the ever expanding and evolving doping methods. Sharapova won't be facing any problems for using meldonium in the period before it was banned and, I'm guessing, for the time it would take for meldonium to get out of her system. If regulations were to change so much that no athlete today would pass it, then I'd say the problem is with all the stuff athletes are using today, wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baxus said:

I'm not so sure Sharapova didn't know meldonium got on a banned substances list. Even if she didn't know, she should've known since it's part of her job and one of the conditions for making millions of dollars/euros/pounds.

Yes, she should have known it. But, the question here is whether she did know it. The difference is in the intent. And the intent is here crucial. Because, at the end, the intent is what separates someone's mistake from criminal activity.

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Ever expanding and evolving banned substance list is not a problem, it's the only way to go to keep up with the ever expanding and evolving doping methods. Sharapova won't be facing any problems for using meldonium in the period before it was banned and, I'm guessing, for the time it would take for meldonium to get out of her system. If regulations were to change so much that no athlete today would pass it, then I'd say the problem is with all the stuff athletes are using today, wouldn't you?

Yes, I do think that is the problem. We can't possibly just rely on legalities here. The thing is that if she provides a proper medical documentation, with the proof that she was truly unaware of the change, at least for me, it exonerates her, to say, morally. But if she doesn't have documentation, if she consciously used it to get the advantage, it's very simple, hasta la vista, Masha :) 

For me, whether someone consciously used a medication to get advantage and whether someone was mistaken is a huge difference. I know WADA works on different principle and that positive result is the positive result, but I do think that whatever strange thing they found in any athlete's body should not be investigated solely on what the certain compound does, but the reason athlete took it. 

Basically, I would treat them just as any court of law would treat any accused. You need to prove both the act and the intent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest is it only performance enhancing drugs that get athletes disqualified?, what would happen if someone tested positive for a recreational one?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lord Sidious said:

Out of interest is it only performance enhancing drugs that get athletes disqualified?, what would happen if someone tested positive for a recreational one?.

depends if the test is done* 'in completion' or 'out of competition'. If you test positive for cocaine in a test done during a tournament you'll be banned like Hingis was. But tests done out of competition (like random drug tests where they show up at your house at 6am) aren't meant to even test for recreational drugs, it is none of their concern and you cannot be banned. 

Edited by Gears of the Beast
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Watson and Del Potro are through, which is good news already.

Del Potro plays Berdych next too, which should be interesting. I can't see him winning at this stage, but it would be nice. 

 

As an aside, in their Davis Cup match Djokovic had to go the full 5 sets against Mikhail Kukushkin, of all people. It's always nice to see him get so nearly upset by ...basically anyone. In fact, at one point he was 2 sets to 1 down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gears of the Beast said:

depends if the test is done* 'in completion' or 'out of competition'. If you test positive for cocaine in a test done during a tournament you'll be banned like Hingis was. But tests done out of competition (like random drug tests where they show up at your house at 6am) aren't meant to even test for recreational drugs, it is none of their concern and you cannot be banned. 

It might depend on the sport. Some sports definitely have banned athletes for out of competition recreational drug use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ser Desmond Wine's Bane said:

It might depend on the sport. Some sports definitely have banned athletes for out of competition recreational drug use.

Which ones? That would be beyond sanctimonious. It's not even ethical to test for recreational use out of competition....  Unless you're referring to some kind of discretionary ban for behavior which involved recreational drug use, that would be a completely separate issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not ethical to test for loads of the stuff they test for but it still happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.